On 13 April 1919, British troops under Dyer fired without warning on unarmed protesters in Jallianwala Bagh, killing hundreds.
In 2024-2025, journalists Mukesh Chandrakar, Shivshankar Jha, and Salman Ali Khan were killed in separate incidents, with some cases linked to their reporting on corruption and crime.
Sedition cases and UAPA detentions against reporters continue to spark debate on authority versus freedom of speech in India.
The anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre returns each year with a stark fact at its centre: on 13 April 1919, hundreds of unarmed Indians were shot in a confined public garden in Amritsar by troops under Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer. The crowd had gathered in defiance of colonial restrictions, many to protest the recently enacted Rowlatt Act, a law that expanded state powers to detain individuals without trial and curb political expression.
The protest that day was not an isolated outburst. It came after weeks of unrest across Punjab, where political leaders had been arrested and public meetings restricted. The Rowlatt Act, widely criticised at the time, was seen by Indian leaders as a direct attack on civil liberties, including the ability of the press to report freely and of citizens to assemble and speak. Newspapers faced tighter scrutiny, and dissenting voices were increasingly treated as threats to public order.
When troops blocked the exits to Jallianwala Bagh and opened fire, the action was not preceded by any warning to disperse. Official British accounts later put the death toll at 379, though Indian estimates were significantly higher. What remains undisputed is that the victims were unarmed and trapped. The massacre became a turning point in the Indian freedom movement, hardening attitudes against colonial rule and exposing the extent to which legal measures like the Rowlatt Act could be enforced through violence.
Remembering Jallianwala Bagh today is not only about recounting the brutality of that afternoon. It also involves revisiting the conditions that made such violence possible: a legal framework that limited dissent, a political climate that treated protest as subversion, and a press environment under pressure.
In contemporary India, debates around press freedom and the treatment of journalists continue to surface. While the context is vastly different from colonial rule, concerns about restrictions, legal pressures and violence against reporters have been raised by media groups and civil society organisations.
In January 2025, journalist Mukesh Chandrakar's body was found in a septic tank after reporting on alleged corruption in a local road construction project. Other killings in 2024–2025 included Shivshankar Jha in Bihar, who was stabbed after his reporting, and Salman Ali Khan in Madhya Pradesh, shot outside a hospital.
On the legal front, journalists covering protests have repeatedly come under pressure. During the 2020–21 farmers’ protests, several senior reporters, including Rajdeep Sardesai and Vinod Jose of The Caravan, faced sedition cases for their coverage and social media posts. Freelance journalist Mandeep Punia was detained while reporting from the protest site at Singhu border. In Kashmir, journalists such as Irfan Mehraj and Aasif Sultan have spent extended periods in detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their reporting on regional issues.
The comparison between 1919 and today has limits as India now operates under a constitutional framework, with legal protections, an independent judiciary, and a wider media landscape. But questions around state power and dissent have not gone away.
The link between the two periods lies in those recurring questions. How far can the state go in controlling speech and assembly? When do laws start to restrict legitimate reporting or protest? And what happens when journalists are attacked—who is held accountable?
Jallianwala Bagh is often cited in this context. The crowd had gathered to oppose laws they saw as unjust, but the state response showed what can happen when dissent is treated as a threat.
Today, the incident is not just remembered as history, but is part of ongoing discussions on press freedom, protest, and the limits of state authority in India.
The anniversary is both a reminder of the past and a moment to examine whether similar concerns continue in different ways.
